January 23, 2016

"... Michael R. Bloomberg has instructed advisers to draw up plans for an independent campaign in this year’s presidential race. Mr. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, has in the past contemplated running for the White House on a third-party ticket, but always concluded he could not win. A confluence of unlikely events in the 2016 election, however, has given new impetus to his presidential aspirations."

Mr. Bloomberg was also sued in 1997 by a sales executive who claimed that after she became pregnant, he urged her to have an abortion, telling her, “Kill it!” Mr. Bloomberg adamantly denied any wrongdoing and settled the case out of court for an undisclosed amount.

If you think I'm going to mock Christie now, hell no. Christie's great. Love you, big guy! I hate to say I would vote for Jeb in this scenario, but how could I not? I'm a Rubio man, but shit brother, I'm ready to jump on any semi-decent bandwagon at this point.

Found results remarkable. Like 85% for any republican. Is the readership of this site so heavily skewed republican? So funny, since Ann is basically a liberal [I think], although an honest one. I"ve always thought an honest liberal could secure some respect. Kristin Powers is another example. Very liberal, but honest and smart, so I respect her.

I don't see how Hillary could not be number 1. Bernie apparently is a true believer he would harm the country. Hillary would harm country for her own selfish ends. Don't know enough about Bloomberg. Don't like Trump, but maybe, he has best interests of country in his heart.

Bloomberg as a pTb? Perhaps, if he comes out as strongly against the establishment as pTb, speaking brutal truth to power. Else he’s lost the Millennials, workers, and the election since they know both parties as exist today can never represent their interests as long as they are controlled by the donor class, the grasping left and dogmatic conservatives. How can the establishment discard everything old and with it their lies and the dogma? Where pTb is the anti-GOP, can Bloomberg be a peer, the anti-Dem? If either of them are elected the establishment, K street, dogmatic conservatives and their donor class enablers and their captive media will be gone. What will be born out of these ashes is a truth-telling libertarian realist electorate and their representatives that have had enough. They may choose to recycle their party's name, or may start from scratch. Since they’ll have the priorities and goals, a merger lowers costs and speeds progress. Expect to see a reactionary party born in opposition to any change in class and status. Leninism reborn. “what, me change? Never!” NZ got it right when they ran out of money and fools who’d loan it more in the 80s. Search Maurice McTigue Rolling Back Government for how straightforward this is when we reach the point where bad or foolish people must do the right thing. Mr. Gore may deserve a better legacy than court jester.

Unlike the other candidates mentioned, Bloomberg has successfully governed. He is, if not the most conservative choice, then surely the safest choice. I think he would be supportive of a strong military, a sensible budget, and reasonable taxes. On all other issues he would be a reliable liberal.......He has absolutely no chance of winning, but I would pick him over Bernie and Hillary and he is far less of a gamble than Trump.

if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

Did he do something to make NYC worse off, or something? Raging King Kongs? He's just the wrong kind of rich guy, or something? Pragmatic, independent moderates are now somehow less appealing to you than socialists, suddenly? I don't get it.

Of course Bloomberg has nobody on the ground in Iowa. He has done zero prep work. He has no serious desire to run for the Presidency. I think there is no conceivable way he could be elected. It's ridiculous.

So why do it?

I think, upon reflection, that he is scared by Bernie Sanders. It would be cheaper for Bloomberg to spend millions trashing Sanders, then what would happen if we elect a socialist.

This is why Bloomberg is not calling himself a Republican. He has no desire to fracture the Republican side. What he wants to do is offer a viable, pro-choice, liberal Democrat alternative to the socialist and the felon.

I will try to bite my tongue. And, for all I know, he is actually motivated by patriotism and a desire to save the Democrat party, which is imploding far worse than the Republican side.

I welcome him to the race. My expectation is that he would run well in NY, maybe CA, and not that many more places, and these are deep blue bastions, which means that they could actually be in play. Both gun control and his ban on choice in soft drinks would not play well in most of fly-over country. And, those who would consider him, would likely be voting for the Democrat already.

Bloomberg is an embryonic totalitarian, his insane efforts to regulate the private lives of NYC residents -- the "big gulp" ban, for example -- are just a hint of what he would do to the nation if given the power of the Presidency. There are lots of nanny state types who always vote for the Democrat, and very few libertarians in the ranks of the Democratic Party, therefore the biggest impact on the election will be felt by the Democratic candidate.

BTW, I favor a constitutional amendment to reduce the power of the President to pseudo-legislate through executive order, and to reduce the power of the courts to legislate from the bench. The delicate balance of our triune government needs to be restored.

Michael K: Does he have another issue besides "big gulp" drinks and guns ?

In addition to the issues noted above, he's the kind of mayor that sics the cops on non-tax paying cigarette sellers then undermines the cops he sends out. And he warns his son, who happens to be black, that cops are not to be trusted.

I'm sure people have as much right to complain about no 7-liter sugared drinks as they do about keeping GMOs from being labelled but it is just a bit funny the things sugar-water drinkers hold to be most dear when conceptualizing their sense of liberty. Maybe it has something to do with that apocalyptic stockpiling mentality. Soda will save civilization! Save yourselves! Save the soda!!!

But in all seriousness, paranoia is a very important quality to maintain in a democracy. I totally get that, I guess.

Nah, not completely. I didn't address what you said about banning guns while maintaining (if it's true) an armed entourage that's somehow bigger than any other elected official's because I'd find that to be at least a potentially legitimate point to make.

Liberals used to understand that liberty is not just about protecting the things you personally hold dear.

I actually LOVE sugar water and keep at least a few of my favorite soda six-packs, etc. on hand whenever I can. But I didn't say I wanted to ban what other people personally hold dear; I just asked why it is that the container size is such a dear thing. It was a question.

Anyway, government has always regulated consumer products. It's not about to stop and the constitution doesn't provide a way for it to stop.

I've cut my salt intake as I have gotten older because my blood pressure seems to track it pretty good, but when I was young, my blood pressure was fine and I loved salt on certain things, corn on the cob slathered in butter comes to mind, or on a vine ripe tomato slice. Why the fuck Bloomberg seems to think this is any of his business is anybody's guess.

Bloomberg's refusal to abide by the term limit law should exclude him from the Presidency. Does anyone doubt he would also feel entitled to a third or maybe even fourth term as President. Bloomberg's $$$ bought a lot of goodwill in NYC. He personally funded many initiatives and gave big donations to all the proper institutes. That is what allowed him to buy a third term.

I've cut my salt intake as I have gotten older because my blood pressure seems to track it pretty good, but when I was young, my blood pressure was fine and I loved salt on certain things, corn on the cob slathered in butter comes to mind, or on a vine ripe tomato slice.

Those sound good and I like them myself. Not that I'm saying it's my business what you eat, just that I agree.

Why the fuck Bloomberg seems to think this is any of his business is anybody's guess.

Because our nation's (and I presume, his city's) dietary habits suck in terms of direct health consequences and whether anyone likes it or not lost productivity due to illness self-inflicted or otherwise is just one of those things that a government is going to take an interest in. The only way you can prevent a government from taking an interest in the citizenry's health and productivity is if you suddenly made it lose interest in the economy. And that ain't gonna happen. Or is it?

Query: Why does everybody want Trump to be a liberal. He is cleaning their clocks by being a strong Conservative. And now they want to prove he is really a great Liberal lover. It sounds like a serious case of Sour Grapes because he can get along with Liberals so well and the Cruz Cult can't do it.

I guess Trump will have to be two people at once but still not please them.

Instead of a Compassionate Conservative we will get a hard nosed Conservative with who can deal with Liberals and with Russia using two skills at once.

And I bet The Donald donates his salary as President to Disabled Veterans.

But I didn't say I wanted to ban what other people personally hold dear; I just asked why it is that the container size is such a dear thing. It was a question.

I didn't recognize it as a question.

Why should a container size be bannable? Why is it dear to the regulators? Why not juice? Why should a truck driver or a college student or a family not be able to purchase a big container of soda (again, not all "sugar waters" were banned) if someone is willing to provide it and they can pay for it?

Sure, regulations can exist. But liberals used to understand they should be used lightly, not frivolously or because they make other people feel like they can control the lifestyles of others.

The only way you can prevent a government from taking an interest in the citizenry's health and productivity is if you suddenly made it lose interest in the economy. And that ain't gonna happen. Or is it?

In 1984, all citizens were required to exercise daily in front of their telscreen so they could be monitored. Who knew the justification was the commerce clause? I love my treadmill, it has made me feel a decade younger. But I would never feel it was the place of the government to force other people to exercise. Let them die young and save social security.

R & B. No, its not guns, its not soda. It's freedom. That's the point you miss.

The point you miss is that not everyone sees freedom in a "special" container size - which is all I asked you to explain. But thanks for the slogan; I was already aware of it.

And I'd already left the gun issue alone. But I guess an educated citizenry being crucial to keeping a free democracy you'd rather focus on slogans and demagoguery than reading what your other free citizen actually wrote.

Myself, I see freedom in pencils. #2, graphite pencils, to be specific. With yellow paint and pink eraser on the end. Because, I tell you, as far as consumer products go, those are the ones that make me the most free. If they go then it's one stop on to gulags.

And lint rollers. There's just no way you can be free without one of those around the house.

But oh well. At least we'll always have large soda containers. You can judge your freedom by how large your soda container is.

In 1984, all citizens were required to exercise daily in front of their telscreen so they could be monitored.

Thanks for the ridiculously rhetorically excessive demagoguery. Is the government making you do that and practically is there even any way to do that? Of course not, so why bring it up? I had a feeling you couldn't resist! And they say the Republican party has nothing real to fight for any more!

Who knew the justification was the commerce clause?

Well, seeing as how it isn't, I guess no one. (Except you and the other martyrs without a cause). It's not happening, not even proposed, not defended by anyone - but, hey. If throwing out a ridiculous slippery slope helps you feel that you made a logical and persuasive point, I say go with it. The worst you can do is fail to convince yourself, right?

I love my treadmill, it has made me feel a decade younger. But I would never feel it was the place of the government to force other people to exercise. Let them die young and save social security.

Setting aside the fact that you're repeating yourself, your final statement is a real clincher. You resent a government concerned with the people's health but advocate (seriously?) for one that promotes early death.

Yep, I can see why the GOP and its governing philosophy is in shambles.

Let's not forget our history, starting way, way back before even Rome (but their case is most illustrative.) As civilizations crumble, the general quality of leaders declines from stellar to wonderful to competent to inept to criminal. Given this trajectory and the flailing insanity of our two major parties, Bloomberg is sure to get into the race. There is no longer anywhere to run away from the abominations; might as well just buy more popcorn and beer.

You know the first thought that popped into my head this morning when I woke up was, "I want Mike Bloomberg". Well the thought was not complete--it was really, "I want that billionaire narcissist to stay the heck out of the election". He's just another New York businessman. Now he's made a lot of dough--but so has Bill Gates, and I don't see Bill throwing his hat in the ring.

OTOH Bloomberg is looking at a race where one party has a ranting old socialist and a sociopathic liar as the leading contenders; and the other party has a New York businessman, an aging Mama's boy, and a couple of Hispanic Americans as the leading contenders. Kasich couldn't sell refrigerators in the Saudi desert; Carly Fiorina is smart and witty, but hasn't got much traction yet. Rand Paul and Chris Christie? Please.

So Bloomberg may think it's time to hire a white horse and charge into the fray.

Why would it matter if it's minorities or otherwise who are driving up the costs? They're all citizens. Whichever citizens are driving up E.R. costs etc. purple, beige, indigo, etc., if it costs the city it costs the city and driving down those costs is important. If he didn't raise it as a racial issue then I don't see how it becomes one. Maybe it's an uninsurance issue, or tied to race that way. But still, not his doing and nothing to call him a racist for if he wants to address it. The city's achievements count no matter the race of who's doing it and it's woes count no matter the race of those afflicted. Even if "affliction" is partly a result of bad decisions.

Bloomberg was a democrat who ran as a Republican because Giuliani cleaned up NYC. Bloomberg, unlike DiBlasio, didn't fuck up the gains Giuliani's administration had made. Bloomberg then changed to an Independent and supported Obama twice. Unlike Giuliani, Obama has done a poor job. Bloomberg is a globalist like Obama and Hillary.

I think he would be, by far, the worst president of any in the field. He would be Obama on steroids. Sanders is a goofy socialist but he is at least concerned, in the abstract, with working class Americans. Bloomberg doesn't give a shit. The working class to him is the group whose kids fight and die in the many interventions the Davis crew believes in. The guy is less American than Obama

A bunch of Silicon Valley billionaires decided to set up a political operation called "The Alliance." They hired a woman with some experience in politics to be CEO. At an early meeting, she joked about her experience dealing with the members. She said, "What is the difference between a terrorist and a billionaire ?" The answer was "You can negotiate with a terrorist."

She was fired a week later. True story. It's in Fred Siegel's book, "Revolt Against the Masses."

So failure to compel people to live the way one thinks is best for them is to kill them? OK, and as for the rest of your answer, I am sorry that you are so literal minded, but I suppose it helps you in your job.

If you really find it such a stretch to compare using the commerce clause to justify laws that are the most tangentially related to interstate commerce to a justification for regulation of human behaviors, restrictions on human freedom, based on lost productivity and negative effects on the GDP, I just don't know what to say but that maybe you aren't as smart as you are convinced that you are.

Another pitch-perfect progressive democrat party candidate: The billionaire leading the populist argument against the 1%, to go along with the feminist slut-shamer and rapist-defender, and the socialist "outsider" who's been in government since Nixon was president. LOL! What a despicable gaggle of anti-American hypocrites and liars that comprise the democrat party.

awesome! another REAL conservative is jumping into the fray. its tough determining of the two who is the more authentic conservative. has we witnessed such shining examples of coservative thought matching action in our lifetime?

Left unanswered is why he would run as an Independent instead of as a Democrat. It would be helpful if Republicans from deep blue states could clarify for us why they identify as Republican instead of Democrat.

Bloomberg will draw Hillary/Obama voters who don't like socialism: upper class whites who vote Democrat. They fancy themselves global citizens, don't associate with working class or low income blacks or whites and hire illegals to raise their children.

R&B"Because our nation's (and I presume, his city's) dietary habits suck in terms of direct health consequences and whether anyone likes it or not lost productivity due to illness self-inflicted or otherwise is just one of those things that a government is going to take an interest in. The only way you can prevent a government from taking an interest in the citizenry's health and productivity is if you suddenly made it lose interest in the economy. And that ain't gonna happen. Or is it?"

So the Bloomberg intervention in New Yorkers' desire to fatten themselves excessively with the wrong kinds of drinks in the wrong sizes was done in the interest of the economy?

The Government's interest in the productivity of the citizenry has a certain ring to it that sounds familiar. Kulaks beware.

So failure to compel people to live the way one thinks is best for them is to kill them?

People are already dying early and you thought that was funny anyway - meaning that you don't take the prospect seriously enough to care for a good-faith conversation on the government's role in disincentivizing against one's slow suicide and the costs you're willing to pay for those attempted suicides.

OK, and as for the rest of your answer, I am sorry that you are so literal minded, but I suppose it helps you in your job.

If you really find it such a stretch to compare using the commerce clause to justify laws that are the most tangentially related to interstate commerce to a justification for regulation of human behaviors, restrictions on human freedom, based on lost productivity and negative effects on the GDP, I just don't know what to say but that maybe you aren't as smart as you are convinced that you are.

One thing's for certain, you're obviously not smart enough to make it through law school or pass the bar. The kinds of "tangential" things the commerce clause has been used to justify and upheld by SCOTUS are legion, Mr. Armchair Freedom Fighter. And with much more wide-ranging effect than a fucking soda size. In fact, it's the way this shit really gets your goat as opposed to much more intrusive and disturbing breaches that makes your party impossible for sane people to take seriously.

The Government's interest in the productivity of the citizenry has a certain ring to it that sounds familiar. Kulaks beware.

People aren't buying the billionaires' bullshitting any more, Yuppie Man. No penalty-free expectation of paid parental leave, sick leave or vacation time in this country and you think Americans will continue hoping that corporations with voluntarily implement a decent standard with those changes? You're hilarious. You just want the opportunity to work your labor to death, treat them like shit, and then lie to them about how the government's going to instead do worse to them than the Soviets did. The hyperbole fits the desperation of the case you'd like to get them to believe.

With the GOP front-runner something other than the kind of "conservative" interested in Country Club Conservatives like Michael, it's going to be interesting watching him trying to keep up the corporatist cliches. He'll have an interesting time coping with his pleas of "But what about the billionaires?" in 2016. Sad.

If Bloomberg enters the race, I'm going to get worried that future elections will become like the America's Cup. Instead of the billionaire's clashing egos through yachts, they'll clash with campaigning for President. Larry Ellison is probably already making plans.

As usual you miss the point. I make money regardless. Perfectly fine for me to have Sanders in the drivers seat. Who do you think raises capital for these zany socialist projects? I could give less of a shit from a business perspective who the president is. I happen to know Trump, have met Cruz a couple of times, have contributed to Hillary, to the fat man and to Rubio. Should Sanders get the nod I will give him money as well. You are such a rube. A naive rube.

Should Sanders get the nod I will give him money as well. You are such a rube. A naive rube.

I've traveled a few places extensively and never noticed "kulaks" in socialist Western Europe. For a guy who who keeps trying to convince everyone he's a Master of the Universe, you sure don't seem to have seen very much of it. What's the matter, does your private plane need better upkeep? The more likely explanation is that just like everyone sheltered by the bubble of his own little aura of projected greatness and "success" deserved or otherwise, you start to believe your own bullshit. You get paid for speculating, and can't imagine that the safe harbor applied to your forward looking statements doesn't make them true.